Atheist: "Do I take my child to church?"

[Pierson5]

Pierson I think I provided the quotes to behe, and you can't say that he didn't pass muster because they are peer reviewed. Once you understand that macroevolution is an impossibility you start to wonder how in the world could these KINDS of animals just pop up fully formed. Macroevolution is a fairy tale yet you defended it as if it were scientific fact. Your eyes are starting to open my friend.

It seems you don't understand what you are talking about. Allow me to shed some light on the subject.



One of the common and often purposefully repeated misconceptions you'll get is a differentiation between macro and micro evolution, there isn't a difference here except the length of time involved. The processes are exactly the same between a bacteria becoming drug resistant and the split between Humans and other primates. That deniers may say agree with micro-evolution under the guise of variation but that macro (speciation) doesn't happen. Which is a safer thing to claim I'll admit because for a very long time it's been hard to directly show due to the time required. That said, we HAVE witness speciation occur.

One of the coolest examples is the London Underground mosquito. It evolved from a founder's event from the above-ground mosquito. The above-ground mosquito only feeds on birds, but the Underground mosquito feeds also on rats and humans, and mates year-round (since the tubes are a controlled environment year-round). It has lost its cold tolerance and the two species are difficult to get to mate, and even then the eggs were infertile.

Great example of speciation to fill a new niche- in this case the Underground system in London.

Another great example: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation

Saying you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution is like saying you can walk ten feet but you can't walk a mile. The only difference between the two is the amount of TIME.

The term species, how it is defined, and what it defines is a tough one. Even those within science don't all agree.

Regarding foxes. Domesitc dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc. have 78 chromosomes. Foxes have as low as 48 and no more than 66. Evolution of De-volution?

There are lengthy definitions regarding what counts as a new "species." In a nutshell, an organism of the same species are able to reproduce and produce VIABLE offspring. Regarding your "chromosome variation" question. Funny, I actually proposed this question to two of my intro bio professors, as I didn't understand it either. There is plenty of evidence for the answer to this question. It's more a question for a microbiologist (the mechanism behind how it occurs anyway, which is what I was curious about). Anyway...

Chromosomal rearrangements occur as a result of random mutation. Recombination is suppressed in those chromosomes allowing the mutation to fix in the population. The suppression of recombination also isolates the genetic material on that chromosome, and the chromosome evolves as though it were in a separate non-interbreeding species. Over time more chromosomes mutate and become rearranged, the lack of gene flow in the rearranged chromosomes leads to more and more divergent evolution on those chromosomes eventually resulting in sexual incompatibility between the populations that carry and do not carry the rearrangements and speciation is complete.

Chromosome number can increase potentially by chromosome breakage (or decrease, fusion). Imagine a chromosome that for one reason or another gets broken into two, which then independently evolve.

Another way is duplication. For whatever reason (nondisjunction, for example), a cell might end up with an extra copy of a chromosome. If this does not cause too much of a fitness penalty, that chromosome can propagate and continue down the road of evolution. Because the extra chromosome is redundant, it can mutate much more freely, and thus you'll eventually have a very different chromosome later down the line. This is also a major source of new genes, and event called gene duplication.

Also, it might be worth pointing out that NOT every species has pairs of chromosomes. Some only have a single copy (monoploidy), some have 4 (tetraploidy, common in plants), and there are some other pretty freaky ploidys out there too.

Ken Miller (Theist) explains it nicely (human/chimp chromosomes):
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Once you understand that DNA is a language

Going back to this again...
The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step, from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal, is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties. Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

Of course I disagree, and I think for darn good reasons. Darwinsim is a religion, which hi-jacks science as its incorruptible, innerrant authority.

There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

Umm, no. I have previously on this forum and can again, show you that wonderful world of make believe. Artists renderings, etc. A very recent case was with an alleged whale with front legs. They were making claims about it having both legs and fluke and being an example of evolution from land to water. One problem,.....no fluke. Later, other remains were found that showed it was a four legged c...

Darwinism is a religion? I don't know what you are talking about. Darwin was the gentleman who proposed the idea based on his observations. He had no idea about things like genetics and DNA. Science improved (and keeps improving) on his theory.

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

I've said it before. Sometimes we get things wrong. It's not a big deal. You could just as easily find instances where we are wrong about how certain viruses work. Does this mean we make a huge fuss about it and discredit germ theory? Of course not!

Also, note that any species that survives and adapts to eventually become a different species is by definition a transitional species. The truth is that all fossils are transitional fossils. And there are many examples of ones that show major physical changes across generations.

Gaps should not be surprising. It's rare for a corpse to leave behind a fossil and if they do, you still have a whole planet to look around on before you find it. These gaps are because of the transitional fossils. When you have fossils of one initial creature and one final creature, and the fossils of one creature in between, you're going to get a gap between the initial and in between one, and the between one and the final one. That's two gaps. The more in between fossils that we have (which we actually do have, and are able to place one after another fairly well), the more gaps there will be.

You guys are basically saying there is this giant lie and conspiracy revolving around the theory of evolution. This is ridiculous. In light of all the publications (in the most critical of journals), extensive fossil record, comparative DNA/Chromosome analysis, and many more, you still claim it's a lie/conspiracy/whatever. Who truly is married to their "worldview?"

Please do go look into the BGV theorem. The reason why it may be new to you is because scientist who disagree don't want to acknowledge its implications. All theories that have tried to avoid an agent now no longer can do so. Its independent of physics all the way across the board.

So I took a look at the BGV theorem, and what I take away from it is:

We know the universe had a starting point (and that would be also the point where time began for our universe). We can see as far back as the CMB (we can't see before that because photons did not persist long enough to be observed). The CMB is the first visible light in the universe that persisted, and is now red shifted to the microwave (due to age) - it is 380,000 years after the BB.

However, what is the point to this? Modern science has, for the most part, never asserted that time is infinite into the past. It postulates a beginning for the universe.

Likewise... in M-theory Brane collision - it is possible for one or more universes to spin out from a proper Brane collision in string dimensions (hypothetically) - but time would be relative to each universe (and in fact, in one universe time could run backward in relation to the other universe, though the occupants wouldn't observe it that way).

So again... what exactly is the point you are making other than to make the same claim that science is making? The only difference I can see is you attribute it to a deity. Your logic is based on the presupposition that any beginning is indicative of a creator as opposed to a creation event. A creation event might be consistent with laws of nature we don't currently know. A deity might be consistent with laws of nature we don't currently know.

My personal thought is this: It does not matter whether you take your child to church. It would appear that you and your partner have different religious views. That in itself is a serious matter, and for the child's sake should not become an issue.

If I was an atheist I would not want my child exposed to Christ because he/she might become born again and that would bring enmity between us both. However it would save the child from eternity in Hell.

I hope you can come to a wise decision. Our children are very vulnerable and need to be taught the truth at an early age.

As I said before. I DON'T CARE if my kid ends up following Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Zeus, whatever . That's their choice. I'm not shielding my child from religion (maybe a few violent parts during younger years). What is the problem if my kid learns about hell as well as other more "frightening" aspects of other religions when they are a little older?

The fact that you have thrown your hands up and said "this doesn't prove God exists" I would have to say that this is just one of many breadcrumbs that should intuitively lead you towards God's existence....

Ask yourself why did the scientific community betray you? Could it be that they are afraid that the evidence will lead towards the very being that they hate? Namely God?

If your an open minded person that is honest with yourself you will come to the conclusion that you were a bit hasty in leaving Christianity .

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further. That is the reason ideas in a book written by a man making observations in the field 150 years ago is now a thriving scientific community, where everyone looks into new possible venues of discovery. Sometimes the claims are wrong, but mistakes are realized and lead us onwards to better discoveries. You have to question the things you believe in, in order to truly understand. If you don't question anything, you blindly follow ideologies you cannot comprehend.

The reason I am an atheist, the reason I subscribe to the facts that are evolution, is because I question things. Evolutionary theory is as much a theory as gravity or germ theory. The only reason you have a problem with it, is because it goes against something in your ancient book. Evolution says NOTHING about there being a deity or not. If evolution was proven false (which it hasn't), it would be one of the biggest discoveries in the scientific community. The discoverer would earn their Nobel prize and their place among famous scientists such as Mendel, Hawking and Einstein. This is every scientist's dream.

The scientific method led us to this conclusion on evolution. I'll propose this question again. If you have a better way of deciphering truth, I'd love to hear it. I'll go a step further. I challenge anyone here to think of a question, upon which we had a scientific answer (however inadequate), but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Your distrust in science is quite fascinating to me (especially as you sit there typing on a computer, using the internet).

I thought I asked this already, but I can't find it.

What do you believe exactly? Is the bible true? All of it? Some of it? Divinely inspired? Does prayer work? Does god have any effect on the physical world in which we currently live? If evidence presented itself proving there was no god, would you become an atheist? The reason I ask is because I seem to be defending myself when the burden of proof isn't even on me.

[bippy123]

Actually pierson, if you had bothered to go through my posts you would have seen that I used to be a theistic evolution, but then again it would have foiled your attempt to use to try to use the bible as an excuse as to why I think the fairy tale of evolution is just that, a fairy tale.

Your color coded post also explains why you haven't the foggiest clue as to why Darwinian evolution cannot extrapolate macro evolution from micro, as did the top 150 evolutionists said at the 1980 Chicago conference, and please spare me the Ken miller quotes as I used to believe every word he said. I even saw his video where he had that cute little chart of the ambulocetas transition to a whale, and that has been trounced since they found a basilosaurus fossil that was from the same timeline as ambulocetas lolol.

I will post again in my next post more about the transitional fossils.

[bippy123]

Barb
Sep 18 - 9:32 am
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

But is this what Darwin found? No. He lamented, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists ... as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. ... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”

Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.” The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”

What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected. (Emphasis mine)

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that ... the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

This is from the uncommon descent forum and I'll post the link in the next post

And the burden of proof is on both of us whether it's a theological discussion or one of evolution. The problem here for you is that as an atheist you must believe in evolution, and if you don't your worldview crumbles so u must defend it whether you have the evidence or not.

So far you brought me a few fossils that evolutionists have tried to squeeze into their worldview, and they are no where near the true transitionals that we are supposed to find under a gradualistic evolution model, it's not in the fossil record, it's never been observed as I showed by the Michael behe critique of that laughable bacterial test , and it doest show up in the famous fruit fly tests. There is no evidence of gradual evolution.

And your wrong about what bilocust say about the theory. They claim it to be fact and that is how I was taught in high school and college, and the fact that you doggedly defended it shows that your not open minded.

There are thousands of morphological changes needed for a land mammal to make the transition to sea dwelling and the pathetic few so called transitionals don't do the trick, and the basilosaurus find from 49 million years back destroys it completely. We can't observe it in bacteria in a lab, we can't observe it in fruit flys either, in other words all we have is inductive reasoning which is not Science.

[bippy123]

As far as proof I have allready show that you dogmatically defended when I brought up the shroud of Turin.
All of the proof points to it being Jesus , the historical proof is strong for authenticity and we don't have the technology to recreate it today, the X-rays,the latest enea tests all seem to coraborrate what the disciples said. So instead of "beng open minded" as you claimed you are you claimed that it still doesn't prove that Jesus was the son of God. The first clue that your atheists world view was faith based was that rediculous Joe nickel link that you posted.
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your atheism is an emotional worldview and not one bass on any evidence.
As I asked before and I'll try it again.

Why do u dogmatically defend a worldview that has no ultimate meaning, purpose, objective morals or hope.
I can't find the logic behind it because there isnt any.

As far as the bible I'm a catholic, I hope that answers your question, and the bible has the best historicity of anything in ancient times. If you have a problem with hell you can't just wish it away . Yes we as Christians have faith but as I have shown you have an incredibly dogmatic faith in atheism and will defend it no matter what the evidence.

If you were truely open minded you would have at least researched the shroud evidence with an open mind, but instead you stood defiant claiming it doesn't prove a thing. Are you trying to convince that your open minded or yourself?
To answer your final question, I would never leave the Lord even if sOmeone pointed a gun to my head.

[musician]

Science is based upon verifiable evidence. I came to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. I reverted to the null hypothesis: There is no god. I have yet to find any convincing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Simple as that..

A simple error yes, that, when universally-applied is not without significant consequence.

Human knowledge and perspective are by nature reductive in relation to the source from whence they came. Humans are not omniscient beings, even when limited to the consideration of what they already know - the ability to process and recall information is somewhat analagous to one's field of vision. The mere act of putting a concept into words to communicate it to another person reduces it to a two-dimensional form before even approaching the chance as to whether it will be understood faithfully or not by the recipient.

Organized human effort, including science, is a highly-specialized endeavor where specific standards and practices are used on specific objects of study to make specific indications according to specific goals. In other words, it is purposefully reductive in order to generate reliable outcomes. For instance, science does not study diverse populations but very specific subsets within populations because such concentration is required to draw reliable conclusions. The rub lies after having condensed ones study to a specific population, to then turn around and draw conclusions as applicable to the general population that was too diverse to reliably indicate the conclusion to begin with.

Why do I say this? I say this because it is easy to be dazzled and impressed by science. And yet science needs to be regarded as what it is - a tool. It is not the arbiter of faith. We each have an empirical, experiential life that we cannot (save for perhaps art), demonstrate or share with each other; certainly not according to any "provably-correct construct". Science is simply not equipped to deal with the intrinsic value and merit of the human experience in which we are each fully immersed. To regard anything that science cannot speak to as inherently untrue is erroneous.

Your position paints itself in a corner so as to exclude the facets of life in which faith is most engaged.

- Nathan

[jlay]

Shifting color posts. Wow. that solves it for me. Molecules to man is just that simple.

Time is not an answer.

[Reactionary]

Pierson I think I provided the quotes to behe, and you can't say that he didn't pass muster because they are peer reviewed. Once you understand that macroevolution is an impossibility you start to wonder how in the world could these KINDS of animals just pop up fully formed. Macroevolution is a fairy tale yet you defended it as if it were scientific fact. Your eyes are starting to open my friend.

It seems you don't understand what you are talking about. Allow me to shed some light on the subject.

I'm afraid your little example is far from satisfactory. Perhaps it had come credibility at the time of Darwin, but today it just doesn't work. Gradualism is a failure. It can't explain how different species suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Even many evolutionists have admitted that, thus creating a punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. During Cambrian explosion, a period that was rather short compared to the history of the Earth, the majority of diversity we see in life today came to be. Furthermore, if gradualism was true, we'd be finding many, many transitional fossils, and not only that - it would mean that every species is some kind of a transitional form. This doesn't fit the data. We observe strictly defined species that can't interbreed. More here: //www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

One of the common and often purposefully repeated misconceptions you'll get is a differentiation between macro and micro evolution, there isn't a difference here except the length of time involved. The processes are exactly the same between a bacteria becoming drug resistant and the split between Humans and other primates.

No, they aren't. To put it bluntly, Pierson, you're lying. For since you're a biology student, you couldn't possibly be miseducated on the issue. The only possibility is that you're trying to deceive us. But we're not as miseducated as you think us to be. Again, as many atheist evolutionists, you play the "time" card. But the thing is, time doesn't help your cause at all. Firstly, in order for a species to evolve, it obviously needs a net increase in genetic information. If you had single-celled organisms, and now you have humans, obviously a huge net increase of information had to happen. Random mutations, however, aren't creative. They are errors in the process of copying the existing information. So even if a beneficial mutation happens, it only means that the existing gene pool was reassembled, thus "creating" something new, but not without consequences. The natural selection led to an actual loss of information, both by getting rid of the unadapted part of the population, and the simultaneous less-or-equal sum of genetic information within species.

That deniers may say agree with micro-evolution under the guise of variation but that macro (speciation) doesn't happen. Which is a safer thing to claim I'll admit because for a very long time it's been hard to directly show due to the time required. That said, we HAVE witness speciation occur.

This whole micro vs macro scheme is just a deception made to be able to claim, "Well, if microevolution happens, surely time will only lead to macroevolution". However, natural selection and variation are not evolution of any kind.

One of the coolest examples is the London Underground mosquito. It evolved from a founder's event from the above-ground mosquito. The above-ground mosquito only feeds on birds, but the Underground mosquito feeds also on rats and humans, and mates year-round (since the tubes are a controlled environment year-round). It has lost its cold tolerance and the two species are difficult to get to mate, and even then the eggs were infertile.

Evolved? Wait a second... Does a London Underground mosquito contain more genetic info than its above-ground counterpart? If it doesn't, then I'm sorry, no evolution happened then. Just adaptation.

Another great example: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

Not that we haven't heard of it: //creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve
I don't always put up links from YEC sites... But when I do, they're a response to links from non-scientific sites.

Saying you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution is like saying you can walk ten feet but you can't walk a mile. The only difference between the two is the amount of TIME.

No, it isn't. I already explained why.

Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

That's just a speculation with no scientific support whatsoever. Information is not stored in a book. Books contain specifically formed patterns of ink traces. It's only when we read them, we interpret them and they become information.

Darwinism is a religion? I don't know what you are talking about. Darwin was the gentleman who proposed the idea based on his observations. He had no idea about things like genetics and DNA. Science improved (and keeps improving) on his theory.

If he had had an idea about genetics and DNA, he would have never proposed that theory in the first place.
Darwinism is a religion precisely because it worships a man who sailed around the world and wrote his observations using his naked eye (such "method" led to the flat earth theory and geocentrism) and primitive, 19th century technology. It's a religion because no matter what we discover, all the facts are being turned into evidence for Darwinism, despite the problems and contradictions.

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

Sorry, Pierson, but I couldn't halp laughing. Don't you see a contradiction in your sentence?

If you don't question anything, you blindly follow ideologies you cannot comprehend.

The reason I am an atheist, the reason I subscribe to the facts that are evolution, is because I question things.

Or if you blindly follow your DNA, genes, and chemistry in your brain, you can't really question anything. That's the irony of atheist materialism. We "dance to our DNAs", there's no free thought and no reason. There's only blind chemistry reacting in our brains, thus creating an illusion of consciousness. Well then, why should we trust our "reason"?

The discoverer would earn their Nobel prize and their place among famous scientists such as Mendel, Hawking and Einstein.

You forgot Haeckel. His drawings were truly an impressive feat.

The scientific method led us to this conclusion on evolution. I'll propose this question again. If you have a better way of deciphering truth, I'd love to hear it. I'll go a step further. I challenge anyone here to think of a question, upon which we had a scientific answer (however inadequate), but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Your distrust in science is quite fascinating to me (especially as you sit there typing on a computer, using the internet).

We don't distrust science. That's a straw man, and you know it. Science is based on the observable and repeatable, and when I ask for observable, repeatable evidence for evolution, I get mostly only just-so stories with double meaning. I want empirical evidence for evolution - i.e. witness it. And don't use the lack of time as an excuse. There are species that multiply so quickly that it wouldn't be a problem to witness positive changes, but with an increase in genetic information.

What do you believe exactly? Is the bible true? All of it? Some of it? Divinely inspired? Does prayer work? Does god have any effect on the physical world in which we currently live? If evidence presented itself proving there was no god, would you become an atheist? The reason I ask is because I seem to be defending myself when the burden of proof isn't even on me.

1. We believe in God, the eternal Creator and Sustainer of everything visible and invisible.
2., 3., 4. Yes, yes and yes.
5. Yes. There is plenty of evidence, look them up yourself.
6. I believe it does. It's personal however, you'd have to ask everyone individually. However, we accept that God is not a cosmic vending machine, and that what we pray for may not be in our best interests, and as such, may not be fulfilled.
7. Indirectly, yes. Some may disagree with me on this one.
8. I'd become an atheist if it was discovered, i.e. proven that:
- Something can come from nothing.
- Life can come from non-life.
- There is high abundance of life in the Universe.
- Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead.
- Mind is fully material.
P.S. The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to prove his/her worldview. Every worldview has positive statements on which it's based on. Atheism is no more default than Christianity.

[bippy123]

[quote]The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step, from

Code: Select all

64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal, is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties. Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.[/quote] 




Pierson, it looks like your copying your information directly from ::drum roll please::: talk origins which is the biased mouth peice of the fairy tale of evolution.

Now lets examine this more closely, and lets go to someone who truely has done their research, perry marshall.



http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/talkorigins-gitt/

Thus every objection TalkOrigins makes to Gitt in this article is shown to be wrong.

Let’s to on to the 2nd article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html 

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher.

This is patently false. It contradicts all the other genetics literature defining codes, the genetic code and the reasons why we call DNA the genetic code. I’ve got a stack of biology books and none of them call DNA a cipher. Most do not even contain the word cipher.

Hubert Yockey shows why DNA is a code in his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938

You can read a summary of Yockey’s definitions at www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq

To say that DNA is not a code is an inexcusable misrepresentation of one of the most basic facts in all of science. TalkOrigins should be ashamed of this. I’m amazed this article even exists.

TalkOrigins says:

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

[b]Webster’s Dictionary defines language as (2): a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

DNA fits most definitions of language. Not necessarily all. The stipulation that any word can refer to any object is minor. It also may very well be wrong because in theory there’s an infinite number of possible configurations of biological machines.[/b]


TalkOrigins says:

The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf’s Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

[b]Zipf’s law has nothing to do with the definition of language. What does this have to do with anything? This is irrelevant. Furthermore, depending on the analysis used, DNA does in fact follow Zipf’s law. See for example http://www.ecology.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ecology/activities/images/Nowak_Sympo_abs.pdf[/b]



Let’s go to the third article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI131.html

[Creationist] Claim: In every case where a machine’s origin can be determined, it is the result of intelligent agency. (A machine is a device for transmitting or modifying force or energy.) Out of billions of observations, there are no exceptions. It should be considered a law of nature that machines, including those in living organisms, have an intelligent cause.

TalkOrigins Response:

1. The claim is an argument by analogy: Life is like man-made objects in containing machines, therefore it is like man-made objects in having an intelligent cause. It suffers the weaknesses of all arguments by analogy. In particular, it ignores dissimilarities between life and design, and the similarity has questionable relevance to intelligence.

[b]My answer: The use of the word code in biology is not analogy (Yockey, 2005). Therefore the argument that life is designed is not an argument from analogy[/b].



TalkOrigins:

Many machines occur in nature without the involvement of intelligence or, indeed, of any kind of life. The following list is far from exhaustive.

* Inclined planes, perhaps the simplest type of machine, are ubiquitous on earth. Functions include causing waves to break and making it easier for animals to climb heights.
* Ice wedges, another form of wedge, contribute significantly to erosion.
* Molecular bonds function as springs as they transmit and distribute forces through materials.
* Thunder clouds generate electrical forces.
* The earth as a whole is a dynamo, converting mechanical motion of convection into a magnetic field.
* Geysers produce eruptions which are predictable and fairly regular. If Paley’s watch can be considered a machine, surely Yellowstone’s Old Faithful is a machine, too, but I have never heard any suggestion that it is designed.


[b]The problem here is an unacceptably vague definition of machine. An inclined plane is a machine by one definition, but that’s obviously not what the creationist was talking about. Thanks to TalkOrigins for a straw-man argument.

In my work I have focused on machines that use or produce code – i.e. variations on the Turing Machine. None of the above machines are Turing machines in the remotest sense and none of them produce codes[/b]

TalkOrigins:

Other machines are created by life but not by intelligence. Genetic algorithms design or help to design many kinds of machines, from antennae to jet engines (Marczyk 2004). One may attempt to argue that items designed by a genetic algorithm inherit the intelligent agency of the algorithm’s designer, but this misses the point that no human mental activity directs the immediate operation of the algorithm. In some cases, for example in some electronic circuits, the algorithmically-designed results show no resemblance to their human-designed versions, and indeed, cannot be explained via human design methods (Koza et al. 2003).

[b]All Genetic Algorithms originate from conscious beings. There are no known exceptions. At all times, GA’s are obeying the rules of a man-made code. Intelligence is always necessary to have a GA.

Thus we see that at every single point, TalkOrigins has failed to identify flaws in Gitt’s work. I would say the same of every other atheist critique. Gitt’s book remains an outstanding expose of the flaws of materialistic biology.

Perry Marshall[/b]


Next I will focus even more on why DNA is a language

[jlay]

Talk Origins is a site with an anti-theistic, anti-creation agenda. Period.

It is pretty obvious whn one thinks he can run to such a site for a few days and come back and pop everyone's balloon. Many on this forum have been having these discussions for years. It is unfortunate that you swallow the fallacy of equivocation so easily, as it seems that you have built your entire worldview around it. TO is just more evidence that Darwinism in a religious ideology. I'll refrain from addressing any of the issues, as my friends have done an admirable job. Kudos.

[Pierson5]

Talk Origins is a site with an anti-theistic, anti-creation agenda. Period.

It is pretty obvious whn one thinks he can run to such a site for a few days and come back and pop everyone's balloon. Many on this forum have been having these discussions for years. It is unfortunate that you swallow the fallacy of equivocation so easily, as it seems that you have built your entire worldview around it. TO is just more evidence that Darwinism in a religious ideology. I'll refrain from addressing any of the issues, as my friends have done an admirable job. Kudos.

It doesn't matter which site the argument came from or what their agenda is. They do a fine job of articulating these arguments and have great answers for the questions you are proposing. Their evidence is cited in such journals as pubmed, nature, etc... Very reputable sources. You guys are basically claiming a scientific conspiracy theory against evolution. I will read through your posts and take a look at the sites refuting talkorigins, but I thought I would address this real quick. If you are familiar with the arguments you should have an easy answer, don't make an ad hominem attack, address the argument on its own merit.

Oh, and saying time isn't part of the equation?

"Speciation also forms a conceptual bridge between microevolution, changes over time in allele frequencies in a population, and macroevolution, the broad pattern of evolution over long time spans."

Biology 8th ed by Campbell and Reece

[KBCid]

Next I will focus even more on why DNA is a language

Language is a strange and remarkable thing. For intelligent agents such as ourselves we associate sounds and gestures with in most cases specifiable structures or specifiable states but, this type of communication has a wide range of adaptability because the transmitter and the reciever can vary meanings at will to transform a word or gesture to have new meaning. The key here is that in every case language conveys meaning as long as the transmitter and reciever both have assigned the same translation. An example of this would be to go to england and ask someone for a f-a-g. In england they will probably hand you a cigarrette because that is what everyone there agrees that it means. However, trying the same thing in america may produce a very different reaction at least until you convey an explanation.

Now for atoms and molecules there is no intelligence at the recieving end that would allow for variability in language and truthfully
there is no intelligence there to understand anything at all so how would an intelligent designer communicate with that which is not intelligent by a language? Well since atoms and molecules can't act on their own or react to arbitrary language forms then a language had to be formed that could cause the atoms and molecules to "react" in a specifiable way. Since atoms have been energized in specific ways they will react in specifiable ways which is why chenistry is such an exacting field.

So if a designer understands the physics of the specific matter he wishes to affect then he would know what he could use to cause a specifiable action to occur. In this case in order to communicate with a specific type of matter you can use other types of matter to affect the matter you wish to get a reaction from. Essentially talking to matter in its own language. The language of forces.

In DNA we find that the architecture of the arranged atoms are specified in a very unique way a way that up until now has been unique to intelligent designers. Intelligent designers communicate with language by transmitting meaning held in an orderly fashion via a substrate. Example, music conveyed as bumps embedded in vinyl records or 1's and 0's on compact disks or any of a plethora of other mediums. In the case of DNA we find the same method in use, the substrate of two long polymers consisiting of simple nucleotides is the conveyor or substrate that information is arranged on in an orderly fashion. This should be a first clue. even the architecture of the substrate is fairly complex in how the information can be stored on it.
The second part of DNA is the actual information, this occurs via the orderly arrangement of other architectures known as nucleobases which are called Adenine (C5H5N5), Guanine (C5H5N5O), Cytosine (C4H5N3O) and Thymine (C5H6N2O2) it is the sequence of these bases arranged along the substrate that forms information.
Now keep in mind that the highest form of information coding that man has created so far only requires a substrate with two specific bases (1's and 0's) This should be a second clue.

So we have now reached a point where we can define the compact disc of life, specifically arranged and complex substrate and four specifically arranged informational units that work in conjunction with the substrate. A total of six structural atomic forms that interact in a specific way. Yet for all these six structurings it is still useless, completely useless until the seventh and final structure exists.... the reader. Ribonucleic acid. This would be a third clue and it is quite a clue.

RNA is structurally more complex than DNA... the CD of life is useless without a reader more complex than itself.

Now remember.... This all built-up into that type of configuration by "random chance" since evolution has no hypothetical power until replication can occur.

'Fear not: Believe only' and thou shalt be saved. Welcome to the belief section of evolution. If you accept evolution as a fact under the current evolutionary system you would need to believe that atomic structures became arranged into a minimal arrangement that allows for replication. Whereupon evolutionary forces then take over and really whip things "into form"

Do intelligent beings actually believe in this?

[Reactionary]

It doesn't matter which site the argument came from or what their agenda is. They do a fine job of articulating these arguments and have great answers for the questions you are proposing.

I'm still waiting for those answers.

Their evidence is cited in such journals as pubmed, nature, etc... Very reputable sources.

An appeal to authority isn't an argument.

You guys are basically claiming a scientific conspiracy theory against evolution.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I'd say that people are biased by nature, and often resort to denial when facts don't suit their wishes. Atheism is appealing to some people, because it would enable them to live irresponsibly and immorally, without consequences. Sometimes people may push an agenda, seeking approval from their peers when they feel uncomfortable about a possibility that they might be wrong.

Oh, and saying time isn't part of the equation?

"Speciation also forms a conceptual bridge between microevolution, changes over time in allele frequencies in a population, and macroevolution, the broad pattern of evolution over long time spans."

Biology 8th ed by Campbell and Reece

Who are they? Why should I care about definitions? I want scientific evidence.

[bippy123]

Next I will focus even more on why DNA is a language

Language is a strange and remarkable thing. For intelligent agents such as ourselves we associate sounds and gestures with in most cases specifiable structures or specifiable states but, this type of communication has a wide range of adaptability because the transmitter and the reciever can vary meanings at will to transform a word or gesture to have new meaning. The key here is that in every case language conveys meaning as long as the transmitter and reciever both have assigned the same translation. An example of this would be to go to england and ask someone for a f-a-g. In england they will probably hand you a cigarrette because that is what everyone there agrees that it means. However, trying the same thing in america may produce a very different reaction at least until you convey an explanation.

Now for atoms and molecules there is no intelligence at the recieving end that would allow for variability in language and truthfully
there is no intelligence there to understand anything at all so how would an intelligent designer communicate with that which is not intelligent by a language? Well since atoms and molecules can't act on their own or react to arbitrary language forms then a language had to be formed that could cause the atoms and molecules to "react" in a specifiable way. Since atoms have been energized in specific ways they will react in specifiable ways which is why chenistry is such an exacting field.

So if a designer understands the physics of the specific matter he wishes to affect then he would know what he could use to cause a specifiable action to occur. In this case in order to communicate with a specific type of matter you can use other types of matter to affect the matter you wish to get a reaction from. Essentially talking to matter in its own language. The language of forces.

In DNA we find that the architecture of the arranged atoms are specified in a very unique way a way that up until now has been unique to intelligent designers. Intelligent designers communicate with language by transmitting meaning held in an orderly fashion via a substrate. Example, music conveyed as bumps embedded in vinyl records or 1's and 0's on compact disks or any of a plethora of other mediums. In the case of DNA we find the same method in use, the substrate of two long polymers consisiting of simple nucleotides is the conveyor or substrate that information is arranged on in an orderly fashion. This should be a first clue. even the architecture of the substrate is fairly complex in how the information can be stored on it.
The second part of DNA is the actual information, this occurs via the orderly arrangement of other architectures known as nucleobases which are called Adenine (C5H5N5), Guanine (C5H5N5O), Cytosine (C4H5N3O) and Thymine (C5H6N2O2) it is the sequence of these bases arranged along the substrate that forms information.
Now keep in mind that the highest form of information coding that man has created so far only requires a substrate with two specific bases (1's and 0's) This should be a second clue.

So we have now reached a point where we can define the compact disc of life, specifically arranged and complex substrate and four specifically arranged informational units that work in conjunction with the substrate. A total of six structural atomic forms that interact in a specific way. Yet for all these six structurings it is still useless, completely useless until the seventh and final structure exists.... the reader. Ribonucleic acid. This would be a third clue and it is quite a clue.

RNA is structurally more complex than DNA... the CD of life is useless without a reader more complex than itself.

Now remember.... This all built-up into that type of configuration by "random chance" since evolution has no hypothetical power until replication can occur.

'Fear not: Believe only' and thou shalt be saved. Welcome to the belief section of evolution. If you accept evolution as a fact under the current evolutionary system you would need to believe that atomic structures became arranged into a minimal arrangement that allows for replication. Whereupon evolutionary forces then take over and really whip things "into form"

Do intelligent beings actually believe in this?

KBC, This is akin to windows software building itself. Only someone with a dogmatic atheistic-materialistic view can believe in this type of fairy tale, and any doubt at all would cause a complete shakeup in their worldview which they simply cant have.

[bippy123]

Oh, and saying time isn't part of the equation?

"Speciation also forms a conceptual bridge between microevolution, changes over time in allele frequencies in a population, and macroevolution, the broad pattern of evolution over long time spans."

Biology 8th ed by Campbell and Reece

If im not mistake all creationists believe in changes over time in allele, but adding macroevolution is from the imagination as again I state there has never been one instance that we have even observed macroevolution in a lab or anywhere for that matter, and then having a biologist calling it a broad pattern over long time spans is where you or he cant bring the evidence to support that last statement. You keep saying that you support science and that evolution has strong scientific evidence, but the only evidence that you brought about that bacteria experiment was shot down within a few minutes by Behe's critique of it. If you have to stretch, bob and weave to bring a flimsy piece like that, what does that tell you about the vaunted scientific evidence for evolution.

Sure you think that they are eloquent in explaining evolution to us. Hitler was also eloquent in gaining the masses but did that mean he was telling the truth?

You have no direct observable examples of macroevolution which means that your inferring that its there. Isnt that what your accusing ID of doing?????????????????

Lynn Margulis, a very well known biologist (former wife of Carl Sagan and an unbeliever herself) who wasnt afraid to speak out against the lack of evidence for macroevolution stated


And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …


and here she states it again.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.”5
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism


and here others state their doubt.

Yet there is a problem with macroevolution. Biologist Sean Carroll states, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for larger-scale changes evident of longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”2

The simple truth is that there is no hard evidence for macroevolution; it is inferred by extrapolating microevolution over geological ages. Yet this inference is questionable.

Even when he originally proposed this notion, Julian Huxley observed: “It must be admitted that the … proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”3

And the same is true today. Zoologist Pierre-P. Grassé claims: “to insist … that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion is an unfounded supposition which … (is) not in accordance with the facts.”4

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution


http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... hist12.htm

THE NEW YORK MEETING
For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done.

In October 1981, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference.

"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur. At the 1980 Chicago meeting:

"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55.

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers.

"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.

"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."—*Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.


Correct me if im wrong Pierson but appealing to authority isnt what the scientific method is about is it? Now you can back macroevolution with religious zeal if you want but thats very unbecoming of you as an atheist? Or maybe its not as I will state yet again, Atheism is an emotional objection not an intellection one.

[bippy123]

Oh, and saying time isn't part of the equation?

"Speciation also forms a conceptual bridge between microevolution, changes over time in allele frequencies in a population, and macroevolution, the broad pattern of evolution over long time spans."

Biology 8th ed by Campbell and Reece

If im not mistake all creationists believe in changes over time in allele, but adding macroevolution is from the imagination as again I state there has never been one instance that we have even observed macroevolution in a lab or anywhere for that matter, and then having a biologist calling it a broad pattern over long time spans is where you or he cant bring the evidence to support that last statement. You keep saying that you support science and that evolution has strong scientific evidence, but the only evidence that you brought about that bacteria experiment was shot down within a few minutes by Behe's critique of it. If you have to stretch, bob and weave to bring a flimsy piece like that, what does that tell you about the vaunted scientific evidence for evolution.

Sure you think that they are eloquent in explaining evolution to us. Hitler was also eloquent in gaining the masses but did that mean he was telling the truth?

You have no direct observable examples of macroevolution which means that your inferring that its there. Isnt that what your accusing ID of doing?????????????????

Lynn Margulis, a very well known biologist (former wife of Carl Sagan and an unbeliever herself) who wasnt afraid to speak out against the lack of evidence for macroevolution stated


And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …


and here she states it again.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.”5
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism


and here others state their doubt.

Yet there is a problem with macroevolution. Biologist Sean Carroll states, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for larger-scale changes evident of longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”2

The simple truth is that there is no hard evidence for macroevolution; it is inferred by extrapolating microevolution over geological ages. Yet this inference is questionable.

Even when he originally proposed this notion, Julian Huxley observed: “It must be admitted that the … proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”3

And the same is true today. Zoologist Pierre-P. Grassé claims: “to insist … that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion is an unfounded supposition which … (is) not in accordance with the facts.”4

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution


http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... hist12.htm

THE NEW YORK MEETING
For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done.

In October 1981, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference.

"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur. At the 1980 Chicago meeting:

"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55.

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers.

"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.

"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."—*Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.


Correct me if im wrong Pierson but appealing to authority isnt what the scientific method is about is it? Now you can back macroevolution with religious zeal if you want but thats very unbecoming of you as an atheist? Or maybe its not as I will state yet again, Atheism is an emotional objection not an intellection one.